I can’t speak to the ideology of the DSA organization itself, but the vast majority of people who call themselves “Democratic Socialists” are, in reality Social Democrats, which is distinct and different from Democratic Socialism.

And thank you for your thoughtful and well researched posts.

Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2026, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I call myself a socialist mostly because I think capitalism is the devil's invention. A system designed to reward those born into wealth and punish those who were born without leftover capital from a dead relative. Much like feudalism but without a supreme king.

But honestly the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy seems like semantics.

I favor Social Democracy policies in Europe and especially in the countries which rank among the happiest in the world which is Denmark and Scandinavian countries.

I actually favor Keynesian economics like we had under FDR and other Western nations. It was the popular economic theory at the time which came after trickle-down economics. Trickle-down economics came back under Reagan but it was rebranded as "Supply-side economics" and we have had that mostly since then, especially during Republican administrations.

I feel the DSA and similar candidates bring us back closer to the Keynesian economics we had under FDR.

Of course, most of his Keynesian policies were sabotaged by Manchin, Sinema and Josh Gottheimer and the Problem Solvers Sabotage Squad.

Same people who pretend FDR was a "democratic socialist" so they can claim New Deal policies are socialist and therefore they are the only REAL Democrats, the 21st century Democratic Party being, like, gross corporate capitalists (pretending both parties have the same unregulated economic policies) who only go to cocktail parties and leave with money (let me look up the quote ... "they go to nice cocktail parties and walk out with a hundred thousand dollars." )

I love Paul Krugman.

“People who do not support the DSA wring their hands at cocktail parties, while the DSA is organizing.”

— Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), quoted by Axios.

https://politicalwire.com/2026/06/24/bonus-quote-of-the-day-2383/

Maybe people who aren't invited are just mad, why the obsession with Democrats "ignoring" this or that.

than the pseudo revolution ones, which is hilarious.

Iff all people who do not support DSA find themselves at cocktail parties, there must be a couple of million more very large, permanently ongoing cocktail parties in the State than I ever noticed when I’m there. Granted, I don’t drink alcohol at all, so maybe I keep tripping over them and never noticed, but you’d think I would have heard the clinking of the glasses at least occasionally.

with their canapés -- plotting to defeat our political revolution." There were lots of fundraising emails like that, "smoke-filled back rooms"; "Our agenda terrifies ... the establishment" "the billionaire class is scared" "the Democratic establishment are getting nervous" Cigars, canapés, cocktails in secret behind closed doors -- is it 1926?

The working class is defined as "people who take showers at the end of the day, not the beginning of the day," that Democrats refuse to open the door to people "whose hands are a little bit dirty." Like in movies or ads, smear some dark makeup on people's faces so we know they're poor.

Lots of outdated stereotypes. Who are the out-of-touch ones again?

But I also hate lima beans, oysters, sardines, bananas and avocados, so I am already considered a genetic anomaly by some, and belong, according to them, in a research lab (as a subject, not as a researcher).

I disdain labels. I guess that’s why some people think it’s important to attach them to me. As you know, “get a life” is not enforceable in a court of law.

The "socialist" version compared to the fancy elite caviars we are told the Democratic establishment centrists nibble during their daily swanky par-tays while chatting about how terrified they are of a political revolution lead by people who don't know what democratic socialism is.

I have seen "the true existing socialism," as they used to label themselves, in East Germany, where the regime proudly shot their own people at the border when they didn't react appropriately to the demand of "Papiere, Bitte!" and tried to leave anyway. I was in Cuba in 1982, and talked with both the lower echelon party true believers (riding around in chauffeur-driven Volga sedans, convinced they had "earned" it) and realistic higher-ups who explained that the government frankly didn't have enough hard currency to both pay for vital imports and let their people travel whenever they wanted. They didn't want to raid every house looking for it (the top guys were under no illusions of how "popular" their socialism was), but they couldn't let it leave the country, either. "Una cuestión de devisas," is how one of the top guys from the BNC put it. At least their upper rank government people knew what the score was--they just never dared say so to the ones riding the limousines. I have seen enough socialism in practice to conclude that "Democratic Socialism" is in the same category as "Military Intelligence" and Vegan Steakhouse." You can wade into the ocean and swim, but you will never grow gills, and you are still not a fish.

And I STILL don't like fish eggs!! They are all yours!

Mr. Thomas once acknowledged this state of affairs. "It was often said by his enemies that [Franklin D.] Roosevelt was carrying out the Socialist party platform," he said in a bitter moment. “Well in a way it was true-he carried it out on a stretcher.”

No matter what we do we’re always going to end up right back here again under capitalism.

It’s the nature of the beast.

their going to attack it.

If you are not for the unregulated capitalist hellscape of the US now, you are a Communist who wants complete government control of the markets and who wants authoritarianism.

People are being propagandized by the billionaire class to reject ideas that would improve their lives. Humans are not supposed to be treated like robots, and then left to starve when their usefulness to the parasite class has ended.

They believe it without proof because they need to believe in things that back up their hateful worldview

In many districts, anything that hints of "socialism" is asking for disaster.

They're going to call you a Socialist anyway. Anybody who believes that can't be convinced.

Our strategy needs to shift from winning RWNJs over, to convincing them to stay home and not vote.

Nothing but limiting the places when you could compete and the main reason DSA will never be more than a distinct minority of the Democratic caucus.

is the rabid, unfettered need for white male supremacy.

Our country was founded on white supremacy and the
importation of slave and cheap labor.

When the imports start to outnumber the whites, then
you get fascism and the use of ways and means to reduce
the nonwhite population and exploit the rest.

unfortunately.

Carney's actions include gutting aspects of public healthcare, pursuing neoliberal privitisation schemes, and setting up a new sovereign wealth fund which (unlike Norway's model that Carney pointed to) will primarily become a structure wherein the public purse becomes a vehicle of public/private pattnership investment that underwrites private firms (and likely aiding them in pursuing risky, poor investments/projects) that remain in private control, etc, etc. The 2 videos lay out a fairly damning case in regards to those things.

The Canadian Liberal party is nowhere near the ideologies of the Social Democracies of Europe, with all three major parties (Libs, Cons and NDP) being controlled by, or under the thumbs of, the dominant industries of Canada: fossil fuel extraction, the FIRE industries (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate), and natural resource extraction (lumber and mining).

Canada itself is an aspiring, but struggling, Social Democracy.

Despite his short comings, I hope Carney’s efforts to make Canada less dependent on the US will draw it closer to the EU and it’s more seasoned Social Democracies.

with the word or with a liberal government. So I have called myself a liberal regardless of any attempts to make it a derogatory term.

In today's terminology, I would consider myself a Social Democrat, but not a Democratic Socialist.

People who care about people might consider operating under a new name. Of course they shouldd choose their own name, but I'd encourage them to choose something that points to their operational goals

Something like, perhaps, party for FAIR-DEALERS

That isn't to say dump the name Democratic Party, but rather use media interactions to press an new association of democrats with the concept of emphasizing policy that produces fair-deals for US citizens.

DEI fits under fair deals. Social Security and Health Care fit under fair-deals. Protecting the poor from the ravages of coporate domination fits under fair-deals.

A little imagination could make the R's jobs a bit more challenging that calling out 60 year old memes from John Birch

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Steinbeck was a visionary.

for the poeple is just moot and disengenuous greed. Capital just wants Govt taxpayer money for thier profits. Taxpayer moneys should benefit the taxpayers and they should decide how it is spent. Trickling down from the billionaires is not benefiting anyone but the billionaires.

pipeline of government money to rich people.

Rs have pushed abd achieved for a few decades.

Under FDR and up until Reagan, we had regulated capitalism with laws that restrained the financial abuses going on now by the billionaire class. But Rs chipped away at those regulations.

Capitalism as a form of governance is just as 'evil' as socialism as a form of governance, but they sell it as patriotic and foundational to society rather than just what it is, a tool in the tool box to be used to benefit society not rule it. Just as Democratic socialism is not bent on Socialist governance but socialist tools to address problems not best suited to for profit solutions.

we are seeing the results of "trickle down economics" and whadaya know, it was always the uber-wealthy pissing on the rest of us

Sooner or later anyone who opposes the dictatorial rule by the wealthy few and/or opposes the white nationalist agenda in any way will be called a "Communist" no matter what they say or do.

Hitler’s party, the NSDAP, were the “Nationalsozialisten.” If you read the early writings of Göbbels, he was a dedicated socialist. But instead of an authoritarian state where just any peasant could rise to the de facto monarchy (Stalin, e.g.), he wanted one where he was guaranteed to be part of it, and so his socialism morphed into Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism.

The general aspects of a strictly socialist state as it existed then, i.e. government ownership (or, at least stewardship of allied industry), a closed elite governing at the will—according to them—of ”the people,” and a powerful secret police to ensure that “the people” expressed no public dissent (NKVD, Gestapo, the official name didn’t matter, the function was the same).

This is why I don't understand why some insist on calling themselves socialists. Why use an unpopular label instead of simply arguing for popular policies? We can run on a much more robust welfare state and tougher regulations. But running on socialism leaves it ambiguous if you want to end private property or at least private businesses.

I consider myself a Social Democrat. Surprise 😉

if I had to use a more specific term, it would be Social Democrat, not Democratic Socialist which uis different.

Social Democrat is a term that many Americans can understand and accept, especially when explained as the system in Europe. Americans want health care, a safety net, and regulations on capitalism.

Here in Europe, each country tries to carve out its own path. Even small, previously ethnically homogeneous countries like NL, Scandinavian countries, had their own ways. Tip O’Neill was still right: all politics is local. NL is currently an absolute mess.

Post-war West Germany in particular went back and forth, although they had the advantage of the watchful eye of their occupiers (France, GB, USA) maintaining that watchful eye on the writing of the West German postwar constitution. They had a hard time reconciling the all-powerful bureaucratic state (very Prussian) with the benevolence of the “never again” Germans such as Adenauer and Willy Brandt. The Social Democrats reached the height of their popularity under Brandt and his protégé, the very savvy Helmut Schmidt, who held weekly phone conversations in fluent English with his center-right counterpart, French president Giscard in Paris. DeGaulle and Adenauer used to talk in German, which DeGaulle spoke very well. How many postwar American presidents have spoken Russian? How many postwar Russian leaders have spoken good English? (If you count Putin’s number two, Medvedyev, then there has been one). Putin does speak fluent German, from his time as part of the Soviet KGB “brotherly” presence in East Germany. But since no recent American president has been fluent in German, no one-on-one has been possible.


The German Social Democrats have since floundered into a rudderless group of bureaucracy-loving sloganeers (mehr Gerechtigkeit!), and were rewarded in a recent national election with under 20% of the vote, a scandalously low embarrassment. Some local SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands) politicians have fared much better, mostly by ignoring the direction of the national party.

of Europe, but they do know that health care is more available there for everyone than in the US. I read your post about the cost of your recent health crisis. In the US, many people would have gone bankrupt to get that care. Others would simply not have received it at all because of an inability to afford the initial visit to a doctor to be diagnosed. By law, ERs here have to treat people who arrive without health insurance, but in practice, those patients get poor attention and treatment because they can't afford the cost of health insurance or to pay out of pocket for diagnosis and treatment.

Of course not all European nations are the same and not all people within them are the same. But in general, there appears to be a better approach to some issues of quality of life than in the US. Here there is an attitude that my German-born great aunt used to refer to contemptuously as, "I've got mine and devil take the hindmost." She was my grandmother's sister and their family left Kaiser Bill's German Empire in 1890 when they were young children, long before modern social programs.

From what I sometimes read, the EU's regulations on things like social media and food production and processing are more mindful of people's protections than in the US where corporations under unregulated capitalism are kings that own Congress. Yet European nations also have quite successful capitalist businesses and corporations. I don't believe that they are faultless utopias, but they are more socially oriented in many ways that we are not.

I was born a few years after WWII ended, so I remember when the US still had corporate regulations from the FDR era on monopolies that prevented huge corporate conglomerates from ruling as if capitalism were a governing system instead of being a financial tool of society. That was before RW politicians chipped away at financial regulations in pursuit of raw, unregulated capitalism.

I am also old enough to remember who the European leaders were that you mentioned. Not that I knew a lot about them, but I did have a very general idea of where they stood politically. Even with a more conservative swing in Europe now, they are socially ahead of the US in many areas of quality of life.

I don't have an in-depth knowledge of German history, but have learned on my own more than we were taught in high school and college courses on European history. I wanted to understand the background of my mother's family. So I understand what you mean about the post war period adjustments from the Prussian authoritarian, bureaucratic way of life.

My mother's paternal side were from West Prussia, near what was then the southern border between Prussia and Poland. Her grandfather was a Uhlan general from an untitled junker family. In 1888 he supported the social and political reform plans of Kaiser Wilhelm II's parents, Kaiser Friedrich and Kaiserina Victoria (daughter of Queen Victoria) for a parliamentarian system like Britain's. But Friedrich only lived a few months as Kaiser and his son, Kaiser Wilhelm II, charged his father's reform supporters with treason, so my mother's grandparents fled with their children to the US.

The maternal side of my mother's family came from a little village called Dargun in what was then Mecklenburg-Schwerin, not very far from the Danish border. The village was founded by Danish monks (13th century, I think) who built their monastery on a mission to convert the Pagan Germans there. That side of the family left, like hundreds of other people from Mecklenburg, for better economic opportunities.

Bureaucratic sloganeers are, IMO, the downside of socialism and one reason why I couldn't support socialism as a political/economic system. But incorporating some social programs into a capitalist democracy as the FDR adminstrations did, is something that I think Americans are ready to do as a reaction against the present move toward a fascist oligarchy.

I mean, these are the bare necessities for people to raise a familily that will provide the workers for all the capitalist operations. WTF use is capitaism if it can't even provide for the resources it needs?

Affordable day care, rent and public transportation have nothing to do with whether the government owns all means of production or not. Any halfway competent government can strive for those goals without nationalizing General Motors.

Watched Tur's segment where she interviewed him. Now I'm no economist, but I've been saying for years that it seemed to me, Big Business tried to stymie the economy during the OBAMA RECOVERY by not investing with the excuse of uncertainty. They claimed they were uncertain about the future of their tax rates. They claimed they were uncertain about the strength of the recovery. I'm betting their reluctance was part of why that recovery was frequently described as "anemic."

Krugman brought up "uncertainty" in the interview today framing it as an excuse during the Obama years and compared it to today's environment where Big Business is paying to play with a president whose policies cause nothing but real uncertainty. Yet none of them publicly express any trepidation about his agenda like they did under Obama. The racism and hypocrisy are glaring.

They wanted Obama’s damage control to infuse their Cheney-Bush-stricken companies with cash, but not so much that it would bring the American economy back to a roaring success, or else the Democrats might have held Congress and the White House uninterrupted for the next thirty years.

And of course there was the Luntz-Gingrich dinner the night of Obama's inauguration where republicans brainstormed on how to block Obama's agenda.

The whole idea behind the American two party system was to have two competing ideologies with the same benevolent goal, i.e. advancing the good of the nation and its people. When the main goal of one of the parties is solely to thwart the other party, irregardless of what misery it causes the population, or what damage it does to the nation, it becomes an inherently "good vs. evil" adversarial contest, where one of the parties has good intentions, but one hand tied behind its back, and the other party sees its main goal as tying that other party's other hand behind its back as well. We will never understand what makes them feel that way, and they will never understand why we hate stooping to their level, but they are grateful for our reluctance to do so.

Well said. All.

Frank Luntz is a piece of work. If you ever read Dickens, and know who "Uriah Heep" was, increase his IQ by about 80, and you have Frank Luntz. The guy is not just wicked smart, but just plain wicked as well. He is a true mercenary, and sold himself to the highest bidder, knowing full well what damage he would do (and did). If there is anything Luntz is NOT, it is a "true believer." He believes in getting paid for his very effective work, and apparently even today manages to arrange that. In a supposedly "confidential" conversation after the 2000 election, he even admitted that Al Gore had won. But so what? He was never going to say so with the mics on and the cameras rolling, and he didn't.

So, his work got done, he got his money, his cause was successful, and the rest, as we all know, is tragedy.

Who made Paul Krugman, a devout Capitalist, the spokesman for Socialism let alone Democratic Socialism?
Has anyone ever seen Paul run in leftist circles? Attending Socialist functions? At protests sponsored by Socialist orgs like DSA?
I hate to tell Paul this but he really has no idea what he's talking about here with this at all.

DSA, it's members, and other Socialist orgs all believe in the foundation of Socialism itself - Workers owning the means of production. To say "most Democratic Socialists are Social Democrats" is misinformation and I'd love to know where he gets this information from. Social Democrats believe in reforming Capitalism, Democratic Socialists want Capitalism replaced. And sorry Paul but calling someone who's a Democratic Socialist a "Social Democrat" would be an insult to them. SocDems are to the right of Democratic Socialists. Come attend a DSA meeting sometime and then come back and tell us how you were wrong.

healthcare don't want general motors to be taken over.

Once you make the argument that workers should own the means of production instead of wealthy elites, well, we all know how THAT goes. Perhaps you were thinking of saying "Nationalized" which is where the state would own GM. That is in fact Communism not Socialism.

Any examples of successful countries that used that model?

I was hoping you'd ask/say that 😀

Context is really important here and not be ignored. When such questions are asked, we must also ask how come that is even a thing to begin with. Well, the answer is essentially a pretty easy one; name a country that's Socialist that the United States has not put sanctions on. That's a pretty huge thing in the overall spectrum of things and who suffers because of those sanctions? Little kids, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, women, on and on and for what? Because a country decided to become Socialist?

I always find that question intriguing because it fails to account for the failures of Capitalism especially as it relates to Central America, South East Asia, and Africa.

I don't know about you but I'd rather have workers own the means of production than some wealthy billionaire CEO was just wants to exploit labor so they can buy another billion dollar boat or super yacht. Not to mention the entire Union aspect of things.

And you think it is all the US's fault?